DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2023/006774 which claims the benefit of KR 10-2022-0115905 with an effective filing date of 14 September 2022 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 10 December 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid
infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b) is appropriate, see MPEP
2173.02.
Claim 6 states “a ratio of a flow rate”; while, claim 9 states “a ratio of a mass flow rate”. Both claims are drawn to ranges that are indicated as “wt%”. The claims lack clarity. It is unclear as to how the wt% ratios are calculated.
For example, as detailed in instant specification Fig. 2 and Table 3, stream 1b entering the first cooling tower 10 has an acrylic acid flow rate of 1920 kg/hr and stream 3b from the lower portion of the first cooling tower 10 has an acrylic acid flow rate of 1919 kg/hr. Claim 6 states “wherein a ratio of a flow rate of acrylic acid contained in a lower discharge stream of the first cooling tower to a flow rate of acrylic acid included in the reaction product is 15 wt% or less”. This limitation is calculated as (lower discharge stream 3b of 1919 kg/hr)/(introduction stream 1b of 1920 kg/hr) equals 0.999. If the calculation is a weight percentages it is 0.999 x 100 = 99.94 wt%.
Claim 6 is interpreted as stated in Para. [38] of the instant specification as “a ratio of a flow rate of acrylic acid in the stream discharged through the lower of the first cooling tower to a flow rate (kg/hr) of acrylic acid included in the reaction product introduced into the first cooling tower 10 can be 15 wt % or less”, i.e. a kg/hr flow rate divided by a kg/hr flow rate.
Since the kg/hr flow rates of the claims 8 and 9 limitations of “the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream supplied to the extraction column” 100, stream 22, and “the second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream” supplied to the azeotropic distillation 200, stream 23, see instant application Fig. 1; Paras. [47]-[49], do not appear to be provided in the instant specification, claim 9 is interpreted as stated in Para. [48] of the instant specification as “a ratio of a flow rate of the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream 22 supplied to the extraction column to the total flow rate of the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream 21 before branching, that is, the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream and the second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream after branching, can be 30 wt % to 70 wt %, and specifically, 40 wt % to 50 wt %”, i.e., the weight percent of the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream supplied to the extraction column 100, stream 22, divided by 100 weight percent of the total acrylic acid aqueous solution stream 21 before branching times 100 with the formula of [(wt% stream 22)/(100wt% stream 21)]x100.
Clarification is required as to how the wt% ratios in the claims are calculated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko), as evidenced by Haynes, (“CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics”, published 2017, 97th Edition, CRC Press, Pgs. 2-47, 4-94).
Hiroko is in the known prior art field of manufacturing methods of “acrylic acid which removes a by-product and obtains highly purified acrylic acid” by condensation/cooling, see Abstract.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1 and 3, Hiroko teaches “a method for producing acrylic acid, comprising at least a reaction step of generating acrylic acid by a dehydration reaction of lactic acid and obtaining a reaction product gas, a condensation step of condensing the reaction product gas, and one or more distillation steps”, see Para. [0013]; Figs. 1-2 on the last page of the Translation. “[Reaction Example 1] As a raw material, 1 kg/h of a 50% by mass lactic acid aqueous solution was supplied at a pressure of 101 kPa to a fixed-bed reactor (reaction tube inner diameter 2 cm, catalyst layer length 1.5 m, filled with 350 ml of the catalyst produced above) heated to 360 C in a night bath, together with 2.3 L/h of nitrogen as a carrier gas, to carry out a gas phase dehydration reaction”, see Para. [0068], where the “dehydration reaction step is not particularly limited and can be carried out in either the liquid or gas phase” and the “reaction product gas typically includes acrylic acid and acetaldehyde, as well as water, lactic acid, acetic acid, 2,3-pentanedione, and others”, see Paras. [0018]-[0021], meeting the limitations of a reaction product including unreacted lactic acid, water, a light gas component, and acrylic acid by supplying a lactic acid aqueous solution to a reactor to allow a dehydration reaction to proceed in instant application claim 1;
“The gas emitted from the reactor was condensed through a condenser and recovered as a liquid”, see Para. [0068], where the “reaction product gas 11 is transferred to a condensation step (B), cooled, and separated into a gas phase 12 and a condensate 13 containing acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0014];[0057]; Original Figs. 1-2 & the last page of the Translation. The “gas phase contains acetaldehyde, as well as CO, CO-NER45, etc.”, see Para. [0031], where the “gaseous components separated in the condensation process may be returned to the reactor as is, or they may be further condensed to recover acrylic acid and then purified” see Paras. [0035]-[0036], i.e., the gas phase also contains acrylic acid, and the “condenser (cooler) can recover acrylic acid as a liquid by cooling it to below the boiling point of acrylic acid (141 C; 101 kPa)”, see Paras. [0034]-[0035], i.e., at the desired temperature below 141 C water is a liquid or vapor and water may be recovered from the upper fraction and/or lower fraction, as evidenced by Haynes Pg. 4-94, water boils at 100 C, meeting the limitations of supplying the reaction product to a first cooling tower to separate the reaction product into an upper fraction containing water, light gas component, and acrylic acid in instant application claim 1;
The composition of the obtained condensate may be “32.9% by mass of acrylic acid, 64.7% by mass of water, 1.2% by mass of acetaldehyde, 0.6% by mass of propionic acid, 0.2% by mass of hydroxyacetone, and 0.2% by mass of 2,3-pentanedione, with an acetaldehyde/acrylic acid ratio of 0.037”, see Paras. [0034];[0069], and also contains unreacted lactic acid in the aqueous phase, see Paras. [0041];[0045];[0053], meeting:
The limitations of a lower fraction containing unreacted lactic acid in instant application claim 1;
The unreacted lactic acid is in the aqueous phase; therefore, within the limitations including a lower limit of zero unreacted lactic acid in the upper fraction gas discharged from the cooling tower/condensation step in instant application claim 3;
As stated above, the “gaseous components separated in the condensation process may be returned to the reactor as is, or they may be further condensed to recover acrylic acid and then purified” in a plurality of “known condensers”, see Paras. [0035]-[0036], i.e., the gas phase containing acrylic acid is further condensed in a second cooling tower/condenser, meeting the limitations of supplying the upper fraction of the first cooling tower to a second cooling tower in instant application claim 1;
In the condensation steps “in addition to water, acetaldehyde and unreacted lactic acid are dissolved and separated from acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0041];[0057], the composition of the obtained condensate may be “32.9% by mass of acrylic acid, 64.7% by mass of water, 1.2% by mass of acetaldehyde, 0.6% by mass of propionic acid, 0.2% by mass of hydroxyacetone, and 0.2% by mass of 2,3-pentanedione, with an acetaldehyde/acrylic acid ratio of 0.037”, see Paras. [0034];[0069], and also contains unreacted lactic acid, see Paras. [0041];[0045];[0053], and at the desired temperature below 141 C water is a liquid or vapor and water may be recovered from the upper fraction and/or lower fraction of the condensation steps, see Paras. [0031]-[0036], as evidenced by Haynes Pg. 4-94, water boils at 100 C, meeting the limitations of a second cooling tower to separate a lower fraction containing water and acrylic acid therefrom in instant application claim 1;
As stated above, “gaseous components separated in the condensation process may be returned to the reactor as is, or they may be further condensed to recover acrylic acid and then purified” in a plurality of “known condensers”, see Paras. [0035]-[0036], i.e., the upper fraction from the condensation step (B) is further condensed then purified, where the purification of the lower fraction aqueous solution after the condensation steps is subjected to extraction process steps (C-1) and (C-2), distillation steps (D), and further purification (E) to obtain “high-purity acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0040]-[0041];[0046];[0051];[0055];[0070]; Original Figs. 1-2 & on the last page of the Translation, meeting the limitations of a method for preparing acrylic acid and obtaining acrylic acid by purifying the lower fraction of the second cooling tower in instant application claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2 and 4, Hiroko teaches the plurality of condensers or coolers “can recover acrylic acid as a liquid by cooling it to below the boiling point of acrylic acid (141 C; 101 kPa)” and “acetaldehyde can be further separated as a gas by cooling the reaction product gas to a suitable temperature above the boiling point of the by-product acetaldehyde (20 C; 101 kPa)”, where “atmospheric pressure is preferred for the condensation of the reaction product gas”, see Paras. [0034]-[0035], i.e., atmospheric pressure corresponds to the taught boiling point temperature range at 101 kPa or 1 kg/cm2 and as evidenced by Haynes Pg. 2-47, atmospheric pressure is 101 kPa or 1 kg/cm2, meeting within the temperature range and pressure range of the cooling towers in instant application claim 2 and in instant application claim 4.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 5, Hiroko teaches the bottom aqueous phase from the condensers contains unreacted lactic acid that is “recycled into the reaction step or the raw material purification step”, see Paras. [0045];[0069], meeting the recovery and recycle of unreacted lactic acid in instant application claim 5.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 7, Hiroko teaches the “gas phase contains acetaldehyde, as well as CO, CO-NER45, etc.” that is separated from the upper portion of the condensers, where “acetaldehyde can be further separated as a gas by cooling the reaction product gas to a suitable temperature above the boiling point of the by-product acetaldehyde (20 C; 101 kPa)”, see Paras. [0031];[0034], meeting the light gas is separated from the upper portion of the cooling towers in instant application claim 7.
Hiroko does not teach:
The limitations of the above instant application claims in one single express embodiment or Example.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiroko to add cooling towers, to rearrange recycle lines, and to choose differing embodiments for the manufacture and purification of acrylic acid, see MPEP 2144.04, with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and environmentally producing acrylic acid “using recyclable bio-based resources as a carbon source” that enable “mass production using inexpensive raw materials” to “obtain high-purity acrylic acid”, see Hiroko, Paras. [0002]-[0005];[0008]-[0009].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying Hiroko to select the optimal cooling tower and process arrangements as taught by Hiroko in differing embodiments with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and environmentally producing acrylic acid “using recyclable bio-based resources as a carbon source” that enable “mass production using inexpensive raw materials” to “obtain high-purity acrylic acid”, see Hiroko, Paras. [0002]-[0005];[0008]-[0009]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
Furthermore, an “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2145 X.B. Since Hiroko teaches condensing and purifying gaseous effluent comprising acrylic acid and recycling effluents, the prior art contains “detailed enabling methodology, a suggestion to modify the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and evidence suggesting the modification would be successful”, see MPEP 2145 X.B.; therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try duplicate cooling towers to condense acrylic acid and further purifying any gaseous effluents while also recycling any of the effluents in the process of Hiroko.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as temperatures and pressures, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko), as evidenced by Haynes, (“CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics”, published 2017, 97th Edition, CRC Press, Pgs. 2-47, 4-94), as applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 above, in view of Song et al. (US20190083923, published 21 March 2019, hereinafter Song).
Hiroko does not teach:
The limitations of instant application claim 6.
Song is in the known prior art field of a “method of recovering (meth)acrylic acid comprising the steps of:
A) contacting a mixed gas comprising (meth)acrylic acid, organic byproducts, and water vapor with water in a (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower to form an aqueous solution of (meth)acrylic acid;
B) discharging the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution of a first concentration, to the side part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower;
C) discharging the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution of a second concentration, to the lowest part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower;
B-1) contacting the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution of the first concentration discharged to the side part with an extraction solvent comprising a hydrophobic organic solvent in the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower, to extract (meth)acrylic acid; and
D) distilling the (meth)acrylic acid extract obtained in step B-1) and the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration discharged in step C), through an azeotropic distillation process, to obtain (meth)acrylic acid,
wherein the first concentration has a lower (meth)acrylic acid concentration than the second concentration”, see Claim 1; Paras. [0022]-[0034]; Fig. 1, where “the term ‘(meth)acrylic acid’ generally refers to acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, or a mixture thereof”, see Para. [0038], and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 6, Song teaches “(meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100) equipped with an absorption section at the upper part and a cooling section at the lower part, and including a heat exchanger for cooling the lower condensate”, see Paras. [0150]-[0161]; Fig. 1. The “mixed gas (1) including acrylic acid” is supplied to “the lower part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100)” with a concentration of “60.9 wt % of acrylic acid, 1.85 wt % of acetic acid, and 37.25 wt % of water” at a flow rate of 46.2 g/min, i.e., as calculated by the examiner (0.609 x 46.2) = 28.1 g/min flow rate of acrylic acid into the cooler, and “acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration was discharged through the lower part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100)”, where “the discharge flow rate of the lower liquid of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100), i.e., the flow rate of the acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration, was 33.49 g/min, and the concentrations of acrylic acid and acetic acid were 77.65 wt % and 2.38 wt %, respectively”, i.e., as calculated by the examiner (0.7765 x 33.49) = 26.0 g/min flow rate of acrylic acid out of the cooler, see Paras. [0154]-[0160]; Fig. 1. As calculated by the examiner, the ratio of the acrylic acid flow rate discharge from the lower portion of the cooler to the flow rate of the acrylic acid fed into the cooler is (26.0 g/min/28.1 g/min) = 0.925 g/min, meeting within the range in instant application claim 6.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process flow rates of Hiroko to adjust the flow rates, see MPEP 2144.05 II., as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the flow rates of Hiroko by applying the known technique of the controlled flow rates as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Hiroko and Song both teach the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Hiroko by relying upon Song before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling art regarding the flow rates within the process, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as the ratio of the flow rates to control the concentration of the aqueous stream components, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko), as evidenced by Haynes, (“CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics”, published 2017, 97th Edition, CRC Press, Pgs. 2-47, 4-94), as applied in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 above, in view of Baek et al. (US20150203431, published 23 July 2015, hereinafter Baek).
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 8, Hiroko teaches in “the extraction step (C-1), the acrylic acid in the condensate obtained in the condensation step (B) is recovered using an extraction solvent”, see Paras. [0040]-[0045]; Original Fig. 1 & on the last page of the Translation, meeting the lower fraction of the cooling/condensation towers is supplied to an extraction column as a first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream in instant application claim 8;
The “condensate 13 is transferred to the extraction step (C-1) and separated into an oil phase 14 containing acrylic acid and an aqueous phase 15”, where the “oil phase 14 is transferred to the distillation process (D), where the top distillate 16 and the bottom liquid 17 containing acrylic acid are obtained” and the “bottom liquid 17 is crude acrylic acid, which is preferably transferred to the purification step (E)”, see Para. [0014]; Original Fig. 1 & on the last page of the Translation. In “distillation process (D), the bottom liquid containing acrylic acid is separated from the low-boiling point components. In the distillation process (D), volatile components such as the extraction solvent and low-boiling point components like 2,3-pentanedione are separated from the crude acrylic acid obtained from the bottom of the column as top distillate”, where the “crude acrylic acid obtained in the distillation process (D) may be used as the final product, or it may undergo a further purification process (E), depending on its intended use”, see Paras. [0046];[0050]; Original Fig. 1 & on the last page of the Translation, i.e., step (D) is the azeotropic distillation, meeting an extract containing acrylic acid and an extraction solvent obtained from the extraction column is supplied to the azeotropic distillation column; and, acrylic acid is obtained from a lower fraction of the azeotropic distillation column in instant application claim 8.
Hiroko does not teach:
The instant application claim 8 limitations of wherein a part of the lower fraction of the second cooling tower is supplied to an extraction tower, and a remainder is supplied to an azeotropic distillation column as a second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 9 and 10.
Baek is in the known prior art field of a “method of continuous recovery of (meth)acrylic acid, comprising:
contacting a mixed gas comprising (meth)acrylic acid, organic by-products, and vapor, which is produced by a synthesis reaction of (meth)acrylic acid, with water in a (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100) to obtain a (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution;
dividing and feeding the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution to a (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200) and a water separation tower (300);
obtaining a (meth)acrylic acid extract with reduced water content from the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution that is fed to the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200), and feeding it to a water separation tower (300); and
distilling the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution and the (meth)acrylic acid extract that are fed to the water separation tower (300) to obtain (meth)acrylic acid”, see Claim 1; Paras. [0008]-[0015]; Fig. 1, where “‘(meth)acrylic acid’ generally refers to acrylic acid and/or methacrylic acid”, see Para. [0039], and is applied to teach the same.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 8, Beak teaches a part of the lower fraction of the cooling/absorption tower 100 of a first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream is supplied to an extraction tower 200 in line 102, and a remainder is supplied to an water/azeotropic distillation column 300 in line 103 as a second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream, where extract containing acrylic acid and extraction solvent in line 203 is supplied to the water/azeotropic distillation column 300, see Fig. 1; Paras. [0026]-[0031], and “in the lower discharged liquid of the water separation tower (300), high boiling point by-products such as a (meth)acrylic acid polymer, a polymerization inhibitor, and the like may be included in addition to (meth)acrylic acid”, “a step of feeding the lower discharged liquid of the water separation tower (300) to a high boiling point by-product separation tower (400) to separate high boiling point by-products included in the lower discharged liquid may be further conducted”, see Paras. [0114]-[0117], meeting the first and second aqueous acrylic acid stream, the extract column, the azeotropic distillation column, and the obtained acrylic acid from the bottom of the azeotropic distillation column in instant application claim 8.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 9, Beak teaches the “step of dividing and feeding the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution to a (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200) and a water separation tower (300) may be conducted in such a way that 5-70 wt % of the obtained (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution is fed to the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200), and the remainder is fed to the water separation tower (300)”, see Paras. [0015];[0081]; Fig. 1, meeting limitations of and within the range in instant application claim 9.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 10, Beak teaches the “upper discharged liquid of the water separation tower (300) may be fed to a phase separator (350) and subjected to predetermined treatment and then reused. The phase separator (350) is an apparatus for separating liquid phases that are not mixed with each other using gravity or centrifugal force, and the like, and a relatively light liquid may be recovered from the upper part of the phase separator (350), while a relatively heavy liquid may be recovered from the lower part of the phase separator (350)”, where at “least a part of the organic layer that is separated in the phase separator (350) may be fed to the upper end of the water separation tower (300) and used as an azeotropic solvent, and the remainder of the organic layer may be fed to the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200) and used as an extraction solvent, as necessary”, see Paras. [0107]-[0109]; Fig. 1, meeting the separation, recovery, and recycle of the organic extraction solvent in instant application claim 10.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors of Hiroko to contain the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors, see MPEP 2144.04., as taught by Baek with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors of Hiroko by applying the known technique of the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors as taught by Baek with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Hiroko and Baek both teach the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, extraction, and azeotropic distillation, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Hiroko by relying upon Baek before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, extraction, and azeotropic distillation art regarding the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the % aqueous stream of acrylic acid sent to differing reactors, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18294056 to Lyu et al. (hereinafter Lyu ‘056) (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite a method for preparing acrylic acid, see Claim 1, the method comprising: obtaining a reaction product including unreacted lactic acid, water, a light gas component, and acrylic acid by supplying a lactic acid aqueous solution to a reactor to allow a dehydration reaction to proceed, see Claim 1; supplying the reaction product to a first cooling tower to separate the reaction product into a lower fraction containing unreacted lactic acid and an upper fraction containing water, light gas component, and acrylic acid, see Claim 1; supplying the upper fraction of the first cooling tower to a second cooling tower to separate a lower fraction containing water and acrylic acid therefrom, see Claim 1; and obtaining acrylic acid by purifying the lower fraction of the second cooling tower, see Claim 1, for clarity the extract supplied to the azeotropic distillation is obtained from the lower fraction of the second cooling tower.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 2, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite wherein an operating temperature of the first cooling tower is 1000C to 180°C and an operating pressure of the first cooling tower is 1 kg/cm2 to 20 kg/cm2, see Claim 2.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 3, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite wherein an amount of unreacted lactic acid contained in the upper fraction discharged from the first cooling tower is 5 wt% or less, see Claim 3.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 4, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite wherein an operating temperature of the second cooling tower is 60°C to 140°C and an operating pressure of the second cooling tower is 0.8 kg/cm2 to 20 kg/cm2, see Claim 7.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 5, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite wherein unreacted lactic acid is recovered from the lower fraction of the first cooling tower, see Claim 1, and the recovered unreacted lactic acid is circulated to the reactor, see Claim 9.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 7, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite wherein the light gas component is separated through the upper of the second cooling tower, see Claim 6.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18294056 to Lyu et al. (hereinafter Lyu ‘056), as applied in the double patenting rejection above of claims 1-5 and 7, in view of Song et al. (US20190083923, published 21 March 2019, hereinafter Song).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The claims of Lyu ‘056 do not recite:
The limitations of instant application claim 6.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 6, Song teaches “(meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100) equipped with an absorption section at the upper part and a cooling section at the lower part, and including a heat exchanger for cooling the lower condensate”, see Paras. [0150]-[0161]; Fig. 1. The “mixed gas (1) including acrylic acid” is supplied to “the lower part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100)” with a concentration of “60.9 wt % of acrylic acid, 1.85 wt % of acetic acid, and 37.25 wt % of water” at a flow rate of 46.2 g/min, i.e., as calculated by the examiner (0.609 x 46.2) = 28.1 g/min flow rate of acrylic acid into the cooler, and “acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration was discharged through the lower part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100)”, where “the discharge flow rate of the lower liquid of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100), i.e., the flow rate of the acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration, was 33.49 g/min, and the concentrations of acrylic acid and acetic acid were 77.65 wt % and 2.38 wt %, respectively”, i.e., as calculated by the examiner (0.7765 x 33.49) = 26.0 g/min flow rate of acrylic acid out of the cooler, see Paras. [0154]-[0160]; Fig. 1. As calculated by the examiner, the ratio of the acrylic acid flow rate discharge from the lower portion of the cooler to the flow rate of the acrylic acid fed into the cooler is (26.0 g/min/28.1 g/min) = 0.925 g/min, meeting within the range in instant application claim 6.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process flow rates of the claims of Lyu ‘056 to adjust the flow rates, see MPEP 2144.05 II., as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the flow rates of the claims of Lyu ‘056 by applying the known technique of the controlled flow rates as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and the claims of Lyu ‘056 and Song both teach the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify the claims of Lyu ‘056 by relying upon Song before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling art regarding the flow rates within the process, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Claims 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18294056 to Lyu et al. (hereinafter Lyu ‘056), as applied in the double patenting rejection above of claims 1-5 and 7, in view of Baek et al. (US20150203431, published 23 July 2015, hereinafter Baek).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 10, the claims of Lyu ‘056 recite wherein an upper fraction of the azeotropic distillation column is supplied to a layer separator to separate water and an extraction solvent, and the separated extraction solvent is circulated to one or more of the extraction column and the azeotropic distillation column, see Claim 10.
The claims of Lyu ‘056 do not recite:
The limitations of instant application claims 8 and 9.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 8, Beak teaches a part of the lower fraction of the cooling/absorption tower 100 of a first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream is supplied to an extraction tower 200 in line 102, and a remainder is supplied to an water/azeotropic distillation column 300 in line 103 as a second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream, where extract containing acrylic acid and extraction solvent in line 203 is supplied to the water/azeotropic distillation column 300, see Fig. 1; Paras. [0026]-[0031], and “in the lower discharged liquid of the water separation tower (300), high boiling point by-products such as a (meth)acrylic acid polymer, a polymerization inhibitor, and the like may be included in addition to (meth)acrylic acid”, “a step of feeding the lower discharged liquid of the water separation tower (300) to a high boiling point by-product separation tower (400) to separate high boiling point by-products included in the lower discharged liquid may be further conducted”, see Paras. [0114]-[0117], meeting the first and second aqueous acrylic acid stream, the extract column, the azeotropic distillation column, and the obtained acrylic acid from the bottom of the azeotropic distillation column in instant application claim 8.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 9, Beak teaches the “step of dividing and feeding the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution to a (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200) and a water separation tower (300) may be conducted in such a way that 5-70 wt % of the obtained (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution is fed to the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200), and the remainder is fed to the water separation tower (300)”, see Paras. [0015];[0081]; Fig. 1, meeting limitations of and within the range in instant application claim 9.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors of the claims of Lyu ‘056 to contain the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors, see MPEP 2144.04., as taught by Baek with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors of the claims of Lyu ‘056 by applying the known technique of the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors as taught by Baek with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and the claims of Lyu ‘056 and Baek both the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, extraction, and azeotropic distillation, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify the claims of Lyu ‘056 by relying upon Baek before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, extraction, and azeotropic distillation art regarding the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the % aqueous stream of acrylic acid sent to differing reactors, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12583812 to Lyu et al. (patented 24 March 2026, hereinafter Lyu ‘812) in view of Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko).
Regarding the limitations if instant application claim 1, the claims of Lyu ‘812 recite a method for preparing acrylic acid, see Claim 1, the method comprising: obtaining a reaction product including water, a light gas component, and acrylic acid by supplying a lactic acid aqueous solution to a reactor to allow a dehydration reaction to proceed, see claims 1-3, 5, 6 & 10; supplying the reaction product to a first cooling tower to separate the reaction product into a lower fraction and an upper fraction containing water, light gas component, and acrylic acid, see Claims 1-3, 5 & 6; supplying the upper fraction of the first cooling tower to a second cooling tower to separate a lower fraction containing water and acrylic acid therefrom, see Claims 1 & 3; and obtaining acrylic acid by purifying the lower fraction of the second cooling tower, see Claim 1.
Regarding the limitations if instant application claims 2 and 4, the claims of Lyu ‘812 recite wherein an operating temperature of the first cooling tower is 1000C to 180°C and an operating pressure of the first cooling tower is 1 kg/cm2 to 20 kg/cm2 and wherein an operating temperature of the second cooling tower is 60°C to 140°C and an operating pressure of the second cooling tower is 0.8 kg/cm2 to 20 kg/cm2, see claim 11.
Regarding the limitations if instant application claim 7, the claims of Lyu ‘812 recite wherein the light gas component is separated through the upper of the second cooling tower, see Claims 5 & 6.
Regarding the limitations if instant application claim 8, the claims of Lyu ‘812 recite wherein a part of the lower fraction of the second cooling tower is supplied to an extraction column as a first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream, and a remainder is supplied to an azeotropic distillation column as a second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream, see Claims 1-3 & 7, an extract containing acrylic acid and an extraction solvent obtained from the extraction column is supplied to the azeotropic distillation column, see Claim 7, and acrylic acid is obtained from a lower fraction of the azeotropic distillation column, see Claims 1 & 7.
The claims of Lyu ‘812 do not recite:
The instant application claim 1 limitations of a reaction product including unreacted lactic acid; and, a cooling tower lower fraction containing unreacted lactic acid;
The limitations of instant application claims 3 and 5.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1 and 3, Hiroko teaches “a method for producing acrylic acid, comprising at least a reaction step of generating acrylic acid by a dehydration reaction of lactic acid and obtaining a reaction product gas, a condensation step of condensing the reaction product gas, and one or more distillation steps”, see Para. [0013]; Figs. 1-2 on the last page of the Translation. “[Reaction Example 1] As a raw material, 1 kg/h of a 50% by mass lactic acid aqueous solution was supplied at a pressure of 101 kPa to a fixed-bed reactor (reaction tube inner diameter 2 cm, catalyst layer length 1.5 m, filled with 350 ml of the catalyst produced above) heated to 360 C in a night bath, together with 2.3 L/h of nitrogen as a carrier gas, to carry out a gas phase dehydration reaction”, see Para. [0068], where the “dehydration reaction step is not particularly limited and can be carried out in either the liquid or gas phase” and the “reaction product gas typically includes acrylic acid and acetaldehyde, as well as water, lactic acid, acetic acid, 2,3-pentanedione, and others”, see Paras. [0018]-[0021], meeting the limitations of a reaction product including unreacted lactic acid, water, a light gas component, and acrylic acid by supplying a lactic acid aqueous solution to a reactor to allow a dehydration reaction to proceed in instant application claim 1;
“The gas emitted from the reactor was condensed through a condenser and recovered as a liquid”, see Para. [0068], where the “reaction product gas 11 is transferred to a condensation step (B), cooled, and separated into a gas phase 12 and a condensate 13 containing acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0014];[0057]; Original Figs. 1-2 & the last page of the Translation. The “gas phase contains acetaldehyde, as well as CO, CO-NER45, etc.”, see Para. [0031], where the “gaseous components separated in the condensation process may be returned to the reactor as is, or they may be further condensed to recover acrylic acid and then purified” see Paras. [0035]-[0036], i.e., the gas phase also contains acrylic acid, and the “condenser (cooler) can recover acrylic acid as a liquid by cooling it to below the boiling point of acrylic acid (141 C; 101 kPa)”, see Paras. [0034]-[0035], i.e., at the desired temperature below 141 C water is a liquid or vapor and water may be recovered from the upper fraction and/or lower fraction, meeting the limitations of supplying the reaction product to a first cooling tower to separate the reaction product into an upper fraction containing water, light gas component, and acrylic acid in instant application claim 1;
The composition of the obtained condensate may be “32.9% by mass of acrylic acid, 64.7% by mass of water, 1.2% by mass of acetaldehyde, 0.6% by mass of propionic acid, 0.2% by mass of hydroxyacetone, and 0.2% by mass of 2,3-pentanedione, with an acetaldehyde/acrylic acid ratio of 0.037”, see Paras. [0034];[0069], and also contains unreacted lactic acid in the aqueous phase, see Paras. [0041];[0045];[0053], meeting:
The limitations of a lower fraction containing unreacted lactic acid in instant application claim 1;
The unreacted lactic acid is in the aqueous phase; therefore, within the limitations including a lower limit of zero unreacted lactic acid in the upper fraction gas discharged from the cooling tower/condensation step in instant application claim 3;
As stated above, the “gaseous components separated in the condensation process may be returned to the reactor as is, or they may be further condensed to recover acrylic acid and then purified” in a plurality of “known condensers”, see Paras. [0035]-[0036], i.e., the gas phase containing acrylic acid is further condensed in a second cooling tower/condenser, meeting the limitations of supplying the upper fraction of the first cooling tower to a second cooling tower in instant application claim 1;
In the condensation steps “in addition to water, acetaldehyde and unreacted lactic acid are dissolved and separated from acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0041];[0057], the composition of the obtained condensate may be “32.9% by mass of acrylic acid, 64.7% by mass of water, 1.2% by mass of acetaldehyde, 0.6% by mass of propionic acid, 0.2% by mass of hydroxyacetone, and 0.2% by mass of 2,3-pentanedione, with an acetaldehyde/acrylic acid ratio of 0.037”, see Paras. [0034];[0069], and also contains unreacted lactic acid, see Paras. [0041];[0045];[0053], and at the desired temperature below 141 C water is a liquid or vapor and water may be recovered from the upper fraction and/or lower fraction of the condensation steps, see Paras. [0031]-[0036], meeting the limitations of a second cooling tower to separate a lower fraction containing water and acrylic acid therefrom in instant application claim 1;
As stated above, “gaseous components separated in the condensation process may be returned to the reactor as is, or they may be further condensed to recover acrylic acid and then purified” in a plurality of “known condensers”, see Paras. [0035]-[0036], i.e., the upper fraction from the condensation step (B) is further condensed then purified, where the purification of the lower fraction aqueous solution after the condensation steps is subjected to extraction process steps (C-1) and (C-2), distillation steps (D), and further purification (E) to obtain “high-purity acrylic acid”, see Paras. [0040]-[0041];[0046];[0051];[0055];[0070]; Original Figs. 1-2 & on the last page of the Translation, meeting the limitations of a method for preparing acrylic acid and obtaining acrylic acid by purifying the lower fraction of the second cooling tower in instant application claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 5, Hiroko teaches the bottom aqueous phase from the condensers contains unreacted lactic acid that is “recycled into the reaction step or the raw material purification step”, see Paras. [0045];[0069], meeting the recovery and recycle of unreacted lactic acid in instant application claim 5.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claims of Lyu ‘812 to quantify the amount of unreacted lactic acid throughout the process and to rearrange recycle lines, see MPEP 2144.04, as taught by Hiroko with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and environmentally producing acrylic acid “using recyclable bio-based resources as a carbon source” that enable “mass production using inexpensive raw materials” to “obtain high-purity acrylic acid”, see Hiroko, Paras. [0002]-[0005];[0008]-[0009].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the claims of Lyu ‘812 to quantify the amount of unreacted lactic acid throughout the process and to rearrange recycle lines as taught by Hiroko with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and environmentally producing acrylic acid “using recyclable bio-based resources as a carbon source” that enable “mass production using inexpensive raw materials” to “obtain high-purity acrylic acid”, see Hiroko, Paras. [0002]-[0005];[0008]-[0009]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12583812 to Lyu et al. (patented 24 March 2026, hereinafter Lyu ‘812) in view of Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 8 in the double patenting rejection above, in further view of Song et al. (US20190083923, published 21 March 2019, hereinafter Song).
The claims of Lyu ‘812 do not recite:
The limitations of instant application claim 6.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 6, Song teaches “(meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100) equipped with an absorption section at the upper part and a cooling section at the lower part, and including a heat exchanger for cooling the lower condensate”, see Paras. [0150]-[0161]; Fig. 1. The “mixed gas (1) including acrylic acid” is supplied to “the lower part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100)” with a concentration of “60.9 wt % of acrylic acid, 1.85 wt % of acetic acid, and 37.25 wt % of water” at a flow rate of 46.2 g/min, i.e., as calculated by the examiner (0.609 x 46.2) = 28.1 g/min flow rate of acrylic acid into the cooler, and “acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration was discharged through the lower part of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100)”, where “the discharge flow rate of the lower liquid of the (meth)acrylic acid absorption tower (100), i.e., the flow rate of the acrylic acid aqueous solution of the second concentration, was 33.49 g/min, and the concentrations of acrylic acid and acetic acid were 77.65 wt % and 2.38 wt %, respectively”, i.e., as calculated by the examiner (0.7765 x 33.49) = 26.0 g/min flow rate of acrylic acid out of the cooler, see Paras. [0154]-[0160]; Fig. 1. As calculated by the examiner, the ratio of the acrylic acid flow rate discharge from the lower portion of the cooler to the flow rate of the acrylic acid fed into the cooler is (26.0 g/min/28.1 g/min) = 0.925 g/min, meeting within the range in instant application claim 6.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process flow rates of the claims of Lyu ‘812 to adjust the flow rates, see MPEP 2144.05 II., as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the flow rates of the claims of Lyu ‘812 by applying the known technique of the controlled flow rates as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and the claims of Lyu ‘812 and Song both teach the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify the claims of Lyu ‘812 by relying upon Song before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling art regarding the flow rates within the process, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12583812 to Lyu et al. (patented 24 March 2026, hereinafter Lyu ‘812) in view of Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 8 in the double patenting rejection above, in further view of Baek et al. (US20150203431, published 23 July 2015, hereinafter Baek).
The claims of Lyu ‘812 do not recite:
The limitations of instant application claims 9 and 10.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 9, Beak teaches the “step of dividing and feeding the (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution to a (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200) and a water separation tower (300) may be conducted in such a way that 5-70 wt % of the obtained (meth)acrylic acid aqueous solution is fed to the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200), and the remainder is fed to the water separation tower (300)”, see Paras. [0015];[0081]; Fig. 1, meeting limitations of and within the range in instant application claim 9.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 10, Beak teaches the “upper discharged liquid of the water separation tower (300) may be fed to a phase separator (350) and subjected to predetermined treatment and then reused. The phase separator (350) is an apparatus for separating liquid phases that are not mixed with each other using gravity or centrifugal force, and the like, and a relatively light liquid may be recovered from the upper part of the phase separator (350), while a relatively heavy liquid may be recovered from the lower part of the phase separator (350)”, where at “least a part of the organic layer that is separated in the phase separator (350) may be fed to the upper end of the water separation tower (300) and used as an azeotropic solvent, and the remainder of the organic layer may be fed to the (meth)acrylic acid extraction tower (200) and used as an extraction solvent, as necessary”, see Paras. [0107]-[0109]; Fig. 1, meeting the separation, recovery, and recycle of the organic extraction solvent in instant application claim 10.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors of the claims of Lyu ‘812 to contain the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors, see MPEP 2144.04., as taught by Baek with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors of the claims of Lyu ‘812 by applying the known technique of the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors as taught by Baek with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and the claims of Lyu ‘812 and Baek both the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, extraction, and azeotropic distillation, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify the claims of Lyu ‘812 by relying upon Baek before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, extraction, and azeotropic distillation art regarding the process sequence of adding streams to reactors and separation reactors, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently and continuously recovering high purity acrylic acid with reduced “energy consumption”, “improved operation stability”, and reduced “production of polymers by polymerization”, see Baek, Paras. [0006]-[0008];[0116]-[0117]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the % aqueous stream of acrylic acid sent to differing reactors, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 6-9 of copending Application No. 18293604 to Lyu et al. (hereinafter Lyu ‘604) in view of Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite a method for preparing acrylic acid, see Claim 1, the method comprising: obtaining a reaction product including unreacted lactic acid, water, and acrylic acid by supplying a lactic acid aqueous solution to a reactor to allow a dehydration reaction to proceed, see Claims 1; supplying the reaction product to a first cooling tower to separate the reaction product into a lower fraction containing unreacted lactic acid and an upper fraction containing water and acrylic acid, see Claim 1; supplying the upper fraction of the first cooling tower to a second cooling tower to separate a lower fraction containing water and acrylic acid therefrom, see Claims 1 & 6; and obtaining acrylic acid by purifying the lower fraction of the second cooling tower, see Claim 6.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 2, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite wherein an operating temperature of the first cooling tower is 1000C to 180°C and an operating pressure of the first cooling tower is 1 kg/cm2 to 20 kg/cm2, see Claim 4.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 4, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite wherein an operating temperature of the second cooling tower is 60°C to 140°C and an operating pressure of the second cooling tower is 0.8 kg/cm2 to 20 kg/cm2, see Claim 7.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 5, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite wherein unreacted lactic acid is recovered from the lower fraction of the first cooling tower, see Claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 8, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite wherein a part of the lower fraction of the second cooling tower is supplied to an extraction column as a first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream, and a remainder is supplied to an azeotropic distillation column as a second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream, see Claim 6, an extract containing acrylic acid and an extraction solvent obtained from the extraction column is supplied to the azeotropic distillation column, see Claim 6, and acrylic acid is obtained from a lower fraction of the azeotropic distillation column, see Claim 6.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 9, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite wherein a ratio of a mass flow rate of the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream supplied to the extraction column to the total mass flow rate of the first acrylic acid aqueous solution stream and the second acrylic acid aqueous solution stream is 30 wt% to 70 wt%, see Claim 8.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 10, the claims of Lyu ‘604 recite wherein an upper fraction of the azeotropic distillation column is supplied to a layer separator to separate water and an extraction solvent, and the separated extraction solvent is circulated to one or more of the extraction column and the azeotropic distillation column, see Claim 9.
The claims of Lyu ‘604 do not recite:
The instant application claim 1 limitations of a reaction product including a light gas component, and an upper fraction containing light gas component;
The instant application claim 5 limitations of the recovered unreacted lactic acid is circulated to the reactor; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 3 and 7.
The instant application claims 1 and 3 teachings of Hiroko are detailed above, meeting:
The reaction product including a light gas component and the upper fraction containing light gas component in instant application claim 1; and,
Within the limitations including a lower limit of zero unreacted lactic acid in the upper fraction gas discharged from the cooling tower/condensation step in instant application claim 3.
The instant application claim 5 teachings of Hiroko are detailed above, meeting the recovery and recycle of unreacted lactic acid in instant application claim 5.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 7, Hiroko teaches the “gas phase contains acetaldehyde, as well as CO, CO-NER45, etc.” that is separated from the upper portion of the condensers, where “acetaldehyde can be further separated as a gas by cooling the reaction product gas to a suitable temperature above the boiling point of the by-product acetaldehyde (20 C; 101 kPa)”, see Paras. [0031];[0034], meeting the light gas is separated from the upper portion of the cooling towers in instant application claim 7.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claims of Lyu ‘604 to quantify the amount of unreacted lactic acid throughout the process, see MPEP 2144.04, as taught by Hiroko with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and environmentally producing acrylic acid “using recyclable bio-based resources as a carbon source” that enable “mass production using inexpensive raw materials” to “obtain high-purity acrylic acid”, see Hiroko, Paras. [0002]-[0005];[0008]-[0009].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the claims of Lyu ‘604 to quantify the amount of unreacted lactic acid throughout the process as taught by Hiroko with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and environmentally producing acrylic acid “using recyclable bio-based resources as a carbon source” that enable “mass production using inexpensive raw materials” to “obtain high-purity acrylic acid”, see Hiroko, Paras. [0002]-[0005];[0008]-[0009]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18293604 to Lyu et al. (hereinafter Lyu ‘604) in view of Hiroko et al. (JP2014189510, published 06 October 2014, see machine translation, hereinafter Hiroko), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-10 in the double patenting rejection above, in view further of Song et al. (US20190083923, published 21 March 2019, hereinafter Song).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The claims of Lyu ‘812 do not recite:
The limitations of instant application claim 6.
The instant application claim 6 teachings of Song are detailed above, meeting within the range in instant application claim 6.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process flow rates of the claims of Lyu ‘604 to adjust the flow rates, see MPEP 2144.05 II., as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083].
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the flow rates of the claims of Lyu ‘604 by applying the known technique of the controlled flow rates as taught by Song with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and the claims of Lyu ‘604 and Song both teach the purification of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify the claims of Lyu ‘604 by relying upon Song before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the separation of an aqueous stream of acrylic acid by condensation/cooling art regarding the flow rates within the process, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing high purity acrylic acid while minimizing the amount of acrylic acid “washed away through the non-condensable gas (101) discharged to the upper part”, see Song, Fig. 1; Paras. [0075]-[0083]; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571)270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights